Retrieving projects from bad performance 1.0
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Retrieving projects from bad performance 1.0

on

  • 423 views

Projects are expected to be adventurous, successful completion of which not only gives tremendous fulfillment to its team but also provides significant return on investment to its sponsors. However, ...

Projects are expected to be adventurous, successful completion of which not only gives tremendous fulfillment to its team but also provides significant return on investment to its sponsors. However, for teams of over 70% of the projects, working on projects is a frustrating experience that throws their normal life out of balance… and the dream of accomplishing an adventurous journey turns into mirage. The conflict lies in the lack of understanding the very nature of the ‘project’ business and the difficulty for organizations in the way they work . While projects are ‘probabilistic’ in nature, a vast majority of organizations tend to apply ‘deterministic’ rules in planning as well as in execution.

This caselet brings out the fundamental nature of project and thereby, exhorts to follow rules favorable in achieving success in ‘projects’. The difference between organizations that respect these rules and those who do not, is huge (e.g. due date performance of over 90% versus less than 40%).

Statistics

Views

Total Views
423
Views on SlideShare
422
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
1
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.slideshare.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Retrieving projects from bad performance 1.0 Document Transcript

  • 1. Retrieving Projects from Bad Performance (A Step Towards Easing the Gridlock at Development Center) Dr. Shridhar LollaDraft2nd Jul 2010Bangalore, INDIA(Based on work with organizations, whose business model is ‘project based’.)Key words: projects, project management, due date performance, performance improvement, dealingwith uncertainties, probabilistic environment, product development, R&D, made to engineer, Theory ofConstraints, startups, entrepreneurship, business rules, business fundamentals, built to last, capacitybuilding, entrepreneurial behavior, value system, culture, behavior, business model.Definition: Prime Rule (n)= Non negotiable rulesPrime Rule #300: A Project must be planned and implemented by incorporating itsprobabilistic nature.Projects are expected to be adventurous, successful completion of which not only givestremendous fulfillment to its team but also provides significant return on investment to itssponsors. However, for teams of over 70% of the projects, working on projects is afrustrating experience that throws their normal life out of balance… and the dream ofaccomplishing an adventurous journey turns into mirage. The conflict lies in the lack ofunderstanding the very nature of the ‘project’ business and the difficulty fororganizations in the way they work . While projects are ‘probabilistic’ in nature, a vastmajority of organizations tend to apply ‘deterministic’ rules in planning as well as inexecution.This caselet brings out the fundamental nature of project and thereby, exhorts to followrules favorable in achieving success in ‘projects’. The difference between organizationsthat respect these rules and those who do not, is huge (e.g. due date performance of over90% versus less than 40%).________________________________________________________________________Copyright © 2010, CVMark Consulting, All rights reserved. 1
  • 2. {Start}2 weeks back, I got a call from Anthony. He has been chosen to start an initiative PROP-UP, to improve the overall project management performance of his center. This initiativecame as a result of review of his development center, during visit of the top 5 globalR&D managers, last quarter. They found significant gaps in the effectiveness of the wayprojects are being managed for years.Anthony was working for my group 5 years back, when I had left the center to work on astartup company. Things changed a lot since then. The number of scientists increasedfrom 80 to 800, the count of open projects increased from 15 odd to over 100 andresponsibility for managing several products worldwide increased manifold. This center,is a global R&D center for a fortune 100 engineering giant, with a specialization insoftware related products. When I had left, a systematic project management practicehad just begun and preparation were on for CMMI-level3 certification.This center is quite different compared to the regular software development companies inIndia, in a way that it has a high percentage of people, who come from industrial systembackground and have a high perspective of customers. Further, product development is asignificant part of its activities.Larger number of projects and people, obviously means that it is a space of multi-projects, that has its own complications. Already, symptoms of sluggish execution startedhinting the management to search for areas of improvements. Anthony came to knowfrom others about my involvement in TOC (theory of constraint and its application‘critical chain’ for projects) and how organizations are dramatically improvingperformance of their projects. He wanted me to have a look at issues faced by his centerand help them moving in the right direction.I therefore visited the center today to listen to Anthony.Anthony again emphasized that his team is to work on an initiative from topmanagement, it has total buy in from the center’s head and that a corporateannouncement has already been made about PROP-UP and most importantly, a team of 4senior managers has been formed to spear head the initiative.I was conscious that this is a big initiative and therefore, of a huge expectations frommanagement. An initiative that is big, meant bigger goal and by nature, would meantbigger change, not only in processes and tools but also in the behavior of people. Biggerthe change (bigger the goal)… means bigger the resistance to change. I, therefore,cautioned Anthony, to go one step at a time in a measured way. It was very important thatfor such a long journey, he gets wins as early as possible so that it is possible to winsupport and create momentum… otherwise, the task of mobilizing 800 people behind thischange would be a Herculean task.Copyright © 2010, CVMark Consulting, All rights reserved. 2
  • 3. My first question was, therefore, what the problem is and how big it is. I did not getappropriate answer to this. ‘Project performance is not satisfactory’, was not the rightanswer. I therefore told Anthony that the he needs to set clear objective and metrics, thatcould be a direct indicator of improvement through PROP-UP. It would then make sensefor everybody to effect the right inputs and evaluate performance of their efforts.His colleagues told me that they the center has two goals, 1. Obtain good Project DueDate Performance(DDP) and 2. Reduce Cost. This looked quite weird to me. The reasonbeing that firstly, an organization must have only one goal. Having two goals meansconfusion and conflicts galore, leading to misalignment down the rank. Secondly, thetwo goals are not mutually exclusively. That is, cost is a dependent quantity on DDP andhence, if DDP is kept under control, cost will automatically come under control. Thirdly,‘cost’ is normally not goal of an organization (even if it is a cost center) and is normally,not given as ‘performance target’ to managers. Why? Because, cost is a parameter, iftaken as a target, managers start chasing it relentlessly, such that they are more often,detrimental to main purpose of the organization, that I believe is not ‘cost reduction’.Most importantly, focus on cost reduction would invariably lead to poor DDP.Since, the center deals in projects, it can be called as a project based organization. Eachproject has a definite scope to be delivered within a cost and time frame. The truth is thata number of projects are abandoned incomplete, and a large number of projects are lateby huge margins compared to their first promised deadline.The normal tendency in project based organizations, is to cut down scope of the projects,in order to deliver them on time. Project managers are worried too much on cost of theproject and are involved in intense haggling with the sponsors about extra fee, when theprojects need to be extended. Thus, projects are actually dominated by scope and costfactors. When these two factors are some how adjusted, the negotiation hinges on thetime. In a majority of the projects, despite all good intentions and compromises on scope& cost, the due date is extended too far, for the reasons that are seemingly not in thehands of either parties. Thus, when the project is delivered, the project team looks at thelast agreed due date of the project and comes out with a performance outcome, that lookslike following on its metrics:Metrics Delivered What it actually means ?Scope 100% Scope as readjusted and agreed (a few weeks before project was delivered), and in most cases it significantly deviate from originally agreed one.Cost 100% The extra cost compared to originally estimated one was readily borne by the client.Time DDP=97% 97% within the ‘last agreed’ date with the client. In most of the cases, the last agreed data is over 50% off the first agreed date.Copyright © 2010, CVMark Consulting, All rights reserved. 3
  • 4. In fact, when I asked Anthony and his team, about the DDP, they said above 90%. I hadgot the same answer, when I went on a call to meet the engineering team of a GermanAutomotive component company, a few months back. Then I had asked them theirdefinition of DDP. And it turned out that their definition of DDP as the performance ofthe project is ‘delivery date’ as compared to the “last agreed date” and not ‘the firstagreed’ date.His colleagues then said, “But this is how every body measures project performance”.My answer was, “Of course, their results are also the same”.The issue then is “So if the DDP is 97%, then what are you complaining about? Is notthis an extremely good performance? You and your customer must be very happy. Butyou also say that your customers are not very happy. And that they are becomingunhappier day by day. It can not happen that your measurement shows one thing (thatmake you happy) and your customers say the other (your customer are unhappy). Maybe that you need to see the way you measure your success; which is not same as the waycustomers measure their success and would like to measure your success. It thus meansthat your current measurements are not aligned with those of the customers.”It is very evident that the organization needs to correct its measurements and see where itis on that today. Then it needs to set an achievable target and initiate improvements thatwill improve its performance and take it closer to its goal. Without correcting themeasurement, having a performance level at 97% on a wrong scale will not allow theorganization to target significant improvement. The idea is that performance willimprove, if we know the right parameter to measure and the inputs that directly influencethis parameter.The question then is in identifying what prevents the organization from achieving a highDDP (from the first committed due date). Knowing what prevents, would shed light oncould cause improvement in performance.At the center, people are measured on DDP not only of the project, but also of theindividual tasks. Project managers spend 100s of hours in reviewing each project andeach tasks day in day out. They are often over paranoid about the uncertainties and workmuch beyond 8 hrs schedule, with an intention to get into details on smallest of tasks.This is also the way they want to feel being hands-on and in control. Despite this, most ofthe projects miss deadlines.People are good, and they spend more than scheduled time without complaining, but it isnot often a pleasant experience to complete a project. People overstretch themselves,imbalance their work and family life, and yet, get frustrated working on projects. There isno doubt about the intelligence, talent and domain knowledge levels of people. Thecenter has a reputation of a sort of hiring people with unquestionable technicalbackground; in the language of their competitors, its resource talent is awesome.Copyright © 2010, CVMark Consulting, All rights reserved. 4
  • 5. The Management too has good intention.If the DDP (from first committed due date) of the project is poor, despite everybody’sbest effort, the problem could be found on one of the following: 1. The assumptions made by the team are wrong 2. The implementation is wrong.The problem has to lie in any one of the above. It therefore, leads me to probe these two.But wait a moment !Are not we talking about a generic problem that is there in all project organizations? (e.g.the German Automotive Embedded System R&D Center, the Big Pharma’s InnovationCenter… and of course, India’s leading software product development company. Not toforget the anemic conditions a majority of startup service companies fall into due toover 100% delays in their projects).Yes, we are talking about generic problems that inflict project based organizations. Andthere are organizations who have come out of these problems. And their DDP (w.r.t. thefirst committed due date) is well above 90%.Anthony’s colleague had asked, “But organizations are different…. How can we applythe same thing here…?”Well let’s understand following:Problems are of two types, which can prevent the organization (whether it is a profitcenter or a cost center) from achieving its goal. In another way, there are two ways anorganization can improve its performance. 1. By providing technical solutions 2. By improving logistical issuesWhat does it mean in the context of the R&D center. There are technical problems thatare linked to software knowledge, code, testing, hardware, energy, data bases, servers,drives etc. These problems can be solved by technical knowledge research and actions;and there would be success, failures, slippages and breakdowns that are of technicalnature.But since, we are talking about a live organization that is already existing as a system, hasdifferent teams, functions, departments, domains, specialization and tools; it has its own‘logistical’ issues. While you create a product or a code, move it between people anddeliver to client, it has to wait for decision and actions, it needs to be planned andschedule, it needs to be verified and approved…. sequenced and timed….and managed.In order for the already available technical contribution of its experts to make a businesscontribution, the center must pass the ‘created value’ through ‘logistical channel’efficiently and effectively.Copyright © 2010, CVMark Consulting, All rights reserved. 5
  • 6. Recent studies by leading researchers reveal that ‘things are more complex than ever’,‘employees know much more than they can deliver’ and ‘organizations expects them todeliver to the level of their knowledge’. What it says is that ‘doing’ is much much smallerthan ‘knowing’. This is clearly a management problem ! The better the organizationprovides management tools, the better will be the delivery from their talented staff. Amajority of the problems faced by project organizations is of this nature i.e. logistical.While technical problems are quite different between domains, logistical problems have alarge similarities, are systemic in nature and are traditionally referred as ‘disruptions toflow’. Hence, these ‘disruptions to flow’ that appear in one domain often reflect in othersand, it is possible to adopt routine as well as innovative solutions from one domain intoothers.FLOW of projects is something that managers need to be increasingly aware of , as theygrow. Ultimately, it is the rate at which projects flow determines a project organization’sperformance NOW as well as in FUTURE.The bottom line is that considering scientific competency of the Center beyond doubt,there could be a large possibility that project management competency from FLOW pointof view, needs to be upgraded. It is like having good vehicles and good road, but not sogood way of managing traffic. It makes sense to invent a better way to regulate the flowthan replacing all the vehicles and making huge investment in road infrastructure.….But we are still talking about poor performance of the organization in terms of DDP. It,therefore, behooves on the organization to have a clear perspective of ‘projectenvironment’ before it identifies what to improve.Worldwide, projects are given due dates and people are asked to stick to project due dateas well as task dues dates. Projects are planned and people are given targets in a‘deterministic’ way. Despite the fact that project environment is ‘probabilistic’ in nature(and not deterministic).Anthony’s teams kept screaming about the uncertainty they have in all projects, sayingthat their projects are different and that they have no way to meet the dates. And theyknow that they can not claim to meet the due dates even before they start execution. Theyclaim that all the planning process is farce, since they do not know which logisticalunknowns (and sometime technical unknowns) will suddenly crop up. There are ofcourse, risks, uncertainties, unknowns and unknowables. Bugs are found late, just whenyou have started a new task some other task pops up on priority, plenty of rework keepsdisrupting the flow, you plan a meeting and something new crops up, server crashes, dllsare missed, people fall ill, floods block travel, flights cancel visit to site, Bangalorebandh hits people’s movement, etc. They say that there is no way, they can do anythingabout it.Copyright © 2010, CVMark Consulting, All rights reserved. 6
  • 7. Yes, they admit “It is a ‘probabilistic environment’. We give target date to everything,just because that is the way every body does it in the industry.”Of course, they get similar results. Every project suffers from uncertainty, every bodykeeps fighting 24x7 to complete the project, but get frustrated at the end. No body ishappy (the least is the customer). Some managers are happy that teams are working morethan scheduled 8 hrs without asking for extra money. They could at least claim that ontheir part, people worked hard….. and but for uncertainty, the projects would have beendelivered on time. (There is another aspect, since there are uncertainties, sometimecertain things are also overlooked and missed)Then I had to tell Anthony that if the project is probabilistic in nature then the planninghas to ‘take care’ of probabilistic nature of the project. And there are techniques that hecould use. But I cautioned that implementing the technique without having buy in ofpeople will not be good.What does it means ‘to take care of probabilistic nature of the project’?Today when projects are planned, they are broken into tasks and then they are sequenced.After this, resources are assigned. Resources are then asked to give time ‘ESTIMATION’of their tasks. The time estimations are plugged into the project’s critical path and it isthus scheduled.The issue here is that ‘ESTIMATIONS’ are ‘ESTIMATIONS’. By definition and design,they are NOT accurate figures. Hence, the due date is never ‘deterministic’, but peopleare ‘MADE TO COMMIT’ to these estimations that are not accurate. Hence, most of theprojects are grossly erroneous at the planning stage itself. (It is a different case thatpeople are driven crazy like herds of cattle to meet the due date and they succumb topressure and work 24x7 instead of planned 8 hrs a day shift; and they finish the projectsomehow.)So, in order to deal with this, it is important that project managers are made to learn toseparate out the uncertainties from the overall estimate and deal with them separately,than dealing with estimates at each task stage. This is important, since at the task level,people must focus on task and be less worried about the decision making related tologistics. Actually, this is not new to finance world, where, while making budget, financemanagers are asked to aggressively price each item, but account for uncertaintyseparately.By taking actions at planning stage itself , in most cased project cycle time can be cut by10-25%, while a remarkable and measurable improvement in due date performance isobtained.TOC gives a way to deal with project uncertainty at planning stage. However, it may notbe possible for the project manager to do this, unless there is an understanding,acceptance and behavioral change in the organization.. Most importantly, theCopyright © 2010, CVMark Consulting, All rights reserved. 7
  • 8. organization must be looking out for an ambitious improvement in its performance. TOCis not for everybody !!!Anthony, seemed to have suddenly found the spark. I then took him to issues beyondplanning and explained him how uncertainties are handled in implementation stage. But Ireminded him that TOC has the power to give dramatic improvement and suchimprovement can not happen unless there is a strong ‘buy in’ from people and they areready for a massive cultural change. The strength of TOC is that it connects humanelement to management techniques.The day was already stretching longer for me; leaving some TO DO for Anthony, Imoved out of the center. Anthony promised to send presentation of his learning from thediscussion, so that he could systematically present strategy for his group to the Center’sDirector. We had a feeling that perhaps, we run a pilot. {to be continued}Clet:05-13___________________About the Author Shridhar Lolla is a practitioner of Business Model Innovation and Focused Execution (Theory of Constraints). He advices business leaders in creating organizations that are built to transform. Shridhar is an engineer by qualification and holds a PhD degree in electrical engineering from IIT Delhi, India. Earlier in his career, he was employed with ABB, the Swiss power and automation technology leader, where he learnt fundamentals of Product Design, R&D and Operation management functions. Subsequently, Shridhar started anindependent business practice, CVMark, where he handholds organizations in delivering breakthroughperformance.At the time of writing this caselet, Shridhar was handholding businesses in Software Development,Embedded Systems, Clean Tech, Pharmaceuticals, Medical Devices, Health Care, Industrial Design andElectronics Industries.Shridhar lives in Bangalore, India, and is accessible at lolla@cvmark.com.__________________Copyright © 2010, CVMark Consulting, All rights reserved. 8